Applied Kinesiology is the name
coined by
a chiropractor, Dr. George Goodheart, in 1964, for the specific testing
of muscles to reveal the need for chiropractic manipulation. His method
is based on the theory that weak muscles on one side of the body can
cause
normal opposing muscles to become tight. In addition to manipulation,
the
system also utilises nutrition, diet and acupressure.

For every motion a muscle makes
there is
a corresponding muscle which opposes that motion. Goodheart reasoned
that
if a "tight" muscle (identified by a spasm, pain or knot), is the one
that
flexes the arm for example, then one could reasonably expect to find weakness
in the muscle that extends it.

Applied kinesiology, then, is a
diagnostic
tool for identifying the precise muscle requiring treatment. Should the
symptoms not be relieved after applying the appropriate manipulation,
then
Applied Kinesiology assumes that the weakness has its root cause in an
allergy. A further test consists of taking a small amount of the
suspect
substance in the mouth and chewing but not swallowing and applying a
standard
Applied Kinesiology test to see if the muscle goes weak.

In conventional medicine
Kinesiology is
the
name given to the study of muscular movement (i.e. leverage, rotation,
force, etc.) by physical education specialists and those who study body
movements scientifically. It is in no way connected with Applied
Kinesiology
or A-K.

Applied Kinesiology has been
employed by
non-scientific health practitioners since the mid 1960s, and although
A-K
can be seen to be very impressive when applied to those persons
susceptible
to suggestion or tactile stimulation, the associations which the
testing
procedure allegedly reveal are highly suspect – the kind of music one
should
listen to, the colours one should paint their house, food compatibility
or nutritional status on the basis of individual responses.

When subjected to testing A-K
proved
unable
to live up to its claims according to a report by the American Dietetic
Association in 1988. (NCAF 1988). Eleven subjects were evaluated
independently
by three experienced A-K practitioners for four nutrients (thiamine,
zinc,
vitamins A and C).

The results obtained from the
A-K
practitioners
were compared with (a) each other for inter-examiner reliability;
(b) standard laboratory tests of nutrient status for validity; and (c)
computerized isometric muscle-testing to test the validity of the
subjective
"strong" and "weak" muscular responses. The researchers found no
significant
correlation between practitioners, biochemical tests or objectively
measured
muscular strength and A-K.

The report concludes "that the
use of
applied
kinesiology to evaluate nutrient status is no more useful than random
guessing."